One of the top critiques of the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit filed in March against four professional tennis governing bodies, is that it didn’t also charge the sport’s four Grand Slam tournaments, which dramatically make the most money and exert significant influence.
That will change next month when the plaintiffs plan to amend the lawsuit formally and add the four Slams as defendants. Lawyers for the players informed the judge of their plans yesterday during a case scheduling conference, a source said.
“We told the Judge that we would be adding the Slams as named defendants instead of merely co-conspirators,” the source wrote in a text. “The case has evolved and we have learned additional facts that make it necessary to have all the key players before the Court.”
Pro tennis is often dubbed an alphabet soup sport for all its different governing bodies and organizations. Take the existing four named defendants. The WTA and ATP Tours are player and tournament run circuits that do not include the Slams, which are often dubbed the majors. The International Tennis Federation oversees the global team competitions, while the International Tennis Integrity Agency does so for the sport’s drug testing and monitoring of possible match fixing.
Then each Slam is their own entity: the United States Tennis Association owns the U.S. Open Tennis Championships; The French Tennis Federation Roland-Garros (French Open); the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club owns The Championships (Wimbledon); and Tennis Australia owns the Australian Open. Then there is the Professional Tennis Players Association, a group formed by Novak Djokovic five years ago to arguably represent players who allegedly were getting a raw deal from the tours (because players are independent contractors, the Tours and PTPA are not unions).
The USTA did not immediately reply for comment, but later said they had “nothing at this time.”
The antitrust lawsuit, brought by the Professional Tennis Players Association and 12 former and current players, charges the four defendants with operating a cartel that suppresses compensation and enforces unfair work rules. In many respects, the Slams would seem better targets, at least compared to the WTA and ATP. Those two organizations are a mixture of players and management, so can make an argument that the players have a voice. The Slams have no official player input into setting compensation or scheduling matches.
The plaintiffs have until June 24th to file the amended complaint based on the schedule agreed to at yesterday’s hearing.
“By July 1, 2025, the parties shall submit a joint status letter proposing next steps in the case,” Judge Margaret Garnett wrote in a note on the docket. “That letter shall address the parties’ views on a briefing schedule for any new or renewed motions to dismiss, as well as whether any discovery should commence and in what form and on what schedule. The parties are particularly encouraged to consider and discuss a more accelerated briefing schedule for motions to compel arbitration and/or transfer venue, as well as whether some amount of class certification discovery can commence. Formal discovery is stayed until further order of the Court.”
In a letter to the court earlier this week, the plaintiffs wrote that they have proposed a discovery cutoff of January 2027, so this case is a long way from a potential trial. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss and to send certain plaintiffs to arbitration, while also requesting a stay as a result. They did get a stay on non-class certification discovery, but otherwise the case is at this point moving forward. And soon with four new major defendants. Pardon the pun.